Sentences with phrase «observed rise then»

Not exact matches

From a speculative standpoint, then, what we presently observe is a rarified syndrome of overvalued, overbought, overbullish, rising - yield conditions that has typically resulted in profound market losses within about 2 years, but that doesn't entirely rule out further speculative gains.

«88 The parables, then, serve as a faithful guide to the middle class and peasant life in Palestine.89 The realism of the parables with their accurate observations on nature and life led Jeremiah to observe that many of them rose out of some accurate occurrence.90

As such, the spike in blood sugar, the corresponding rise in blood insulin levels, and then subsequent rebound dip into hypoglycemia observed after consumption of HFCS is not observed in the consumption of fruit.

Then he observes us while he contemplates himself in a mirror revealing a childish pleasure, until he reaches the climax, when, after lowering his trousers, he begins to urinate streams that rise like the waterworks of public fountains.

The observed temperature rise since 1940 is then 0.45 ± 0.05 C.

Why b is then negative for the fit to the overall observed sea - level rise remains a bit of an enigma, though — in our paper we interpret this as a time lag, and I still think this is the likely answer.

If it is net negative then explaining the observed rate of sea level rise is problematic.

The Solomon Committee report amplifies this conclusion when it confirms that we observe, in any year, only 50 % of the warming to which we have committed the planet by allowing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to rise to the then current level.

To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30 %, and easily beating naive predictions of no - change or a linear continuation of trends.

In the end, one need not know with a high degree of accuracy the intricacies of the climate's variability to show an increased warming trend: 3 Furthermore, there are no models that exist that are able to match recent observed warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account, i.e. if radiative forcings from CO2 aren't taken into account, then models don't match hindcasting.

Human - induced forcing exhibited a slow rise during the early part of the last century but then accelerated after 1960.2 Thus, these graphs highlight observed changes in climate during the period of rapid increase in human - caused forcing and also reveal how well climate models simulate these observed changes.

If someone could measure the increase in CO2 from current levels, and prove that an observed rise in temperature was caused by this increase in CO2, then climate sensitivity can be measured, and CAGW could be proven or falsified.

jimmi says: «If the sea surface temperature rise is correctly observed, as the paper assumes, and if it is truly global, as is stated, then a large amount of energy has been added to the top layer of the ocean.»

If the sea surface temperature rise is correctly observed, as the paper assumes, and if it is truly global, as is stated, then a large amount of energy has been added to the top layer of the ocean.

In a System where - in the Mass of the most involved materials contained is proportioned in kilogramsx10 ^ 24, then alterations to Turbulence within those materials WILL release (or uptake) vast amounts of Kinetic Energy, and that this will then be observed as a RISE (or DECLINE) in the measured «temperature» of the System with NO NEED for alteration of the RATE of overall «new» Kinetic Energy production.

Thus, in a system where in the Mass of the materials contained is proportioned in the atmosphere at ~ 0.0000051 x10 ^ 24 kilograms & oceans at ~ 0.0014 x10 ^ 24 kilograms (*), then it need to be realised that alterations to Turbulence WILL release vast amounts of Kinetic Energy that can then be observed as a RISE or DECLINE in the measured «temperature» of those (various) materials constituting the System.

between the beginning of the century and the 1930s, then reached a minimum around 1970 and rose again, a pattern similar to the one observed in the Arctic.

«However, if successful, we then should observe an incremental rise in mean values of height, lifespan and most human biomarkers.

Then logically it will never be possible to observe a rise in temperature which can be shown to be caused by adding CO2 to the atmopshere.

They then observe an acceleration in sea - level rise during the 19th and early 20th century.

On the other hand, we know anthropogenic emissions are more than enough to explain all of the observed rise (and then some).

Then what pH change would induce the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration which we have observed?

Working through the rest of my calculations (i.e., stratospheric water vapor and then black carbon) using the new 0.085 °C / decade baseline leaves a trend of 0.056 °C / decade that could potentially be from anthropogenic GHGs, or a total potential temperature rise of 0.337 °C — which is 48 % of the current «observed» value — or less than half of the current «observed» warming from the mid-20th century.

O.K. in that case, if you think the natural environment is a net source, then explain why the observed rise is less than anthropogenic emissions.

By dividing the total temperature change (as indicated by the best - fit linear trend) by the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, and then applying that relationship to a doubling of the carbon dioxide content, Loehle arrives at an estimate of the earth's transient climate sensitivity — transient, in the sense that at the time of CO2 doubling, the earth has yet to reach a state of equilibrium and some warming is still to come.

The low estimates of the 4th report were already at the time considered too low by many experts — there were many indications of that (which we discussed back then), including the fact that the process models used by IPCC greatly underestimated the past observed sea - level rise.

If we can trust the RF calculation in the absence of effective peer - review — and using the observed global rise in T (criticism of urban heat islands and dodgy grid homogenising algorithms not - withstanding), then 0.7 = X (RF), where the RF for CO2 is.....?